I struggled over this page mostly because it’s just a bridge from the previous pages, and also it seemed a little expositiony… well, no, exposition isn’t the problem. At some point in the past decade, I’m not sure when, I’ve developed a bit of a pet peeve where exposition between characters who already know everything that’s being said bugs me more and more. It’s one thing for Data to remind Picard that the phasers are routed through the warp core (something Picard would obviously know) if he’s leading into a larger point, but when Capt. Bryant is telling Deckard that Replicants have a four year lifespan to prevent them from developing emotions, that’s just bad writing in my opinion. There is NO WAY a professional Replicant hunter wouldn’t already know that. My problem with this page is that Arianna already knows what Arc-LIGHT’s function is, so having Max spell it out explicitly is really just for the readers’ benefit. Still, I don’t think it’s as egregious a case of exposition as the Blade Runner example, because when people argue they can get locked into a narrow point and need to be reminded of the bigger picture.

I guess what I’m complaining about is called the “As you know” trope, (Warning! TVTropes is a black hole level time sink) where the only party learning new information is the audience. My pet peeve is when they don’t even have the courtesy to drop the “as you know” in there, or at least have Deckard roll his eyes and tell Bryant not to patronize him.

Also, when you’re telling a story, not every page will have All The Jokes on them, and the primary gag of this page is just a visual reference that maybe 8% of readers will get right away. I’m sure someone in the comments will eventually explain it.

Friday is Valentine’s day and I’ll again be participating in the Valentine’s Day Sex Drive, which is mostly an excuse to draw nude superheroines, and is what got you the Harem spread last year. (Not linked directly since it’s NSFW, but it’s in the DeviantArt gallery) This year will feature a certain one legged sniper, so those of you who wanted to see more of her tattoos should be pleased.

Also also, I’ll be recording a podcast with the folks over at Webcomic Alliance, which if you make or want to make webcomics, is a pretty good resource. We’ll be talking about the Patreon campaign and just talking shop about webcomics in general. I’ll link that when it gets posted.

Check out the first comment and it’s replies on page 1 of the comments. In short yes. Although it is actually referencing his role as Jonathan Creek. Even down to the distinctive outfit he wears.

As regards QI, I do. Smashing series. In particular I like the interplay between Alan and his arch-nemesis Stephen Fry. But it is a clever production all round, what with mixing clever comedians with interesting trivia.

Nope. It must have come out after I emigrated, plus I can’t afford to subscribe to satellite TV* and don’t use pirate channels. Which means I can only catch up on things I have missed when I am back visiting in the UK.

Saw the trailer though, on YouTube, so I now have the idea of what it is about. It gave me a similar feel, if different setting, to ‘The Office’. Which isn’t a good thing, because I have always avoided that style of humour. Starring Davies it might tempt me mind.

* Well, it is also the fact that I would need a big and expensive dish to pick up a satellite pointing at the UK, from this furthest corner of the EU.

There are services like Netflix and Hulu in the US that you can access online to watch many TV shows. They are fairly cheap and have tons of shows from everywhere. I watched the original Millenium Series by Stieg Larson on Netflix.

Even ‘fairly cheap’ would be above my means. My budget involves getting rid of even moderately useful things like telephones. I realised that I used Skype for practically all of my day-to-day needs, and that it was a mostly unnecessary expense. I regret the loss of capability to call for the emergency services, but that is it. And I can work around that issue.

But do not get me wrong, I am perfectly happy with my lifestyle choices. My quality of life jumped significantly when I stopped watching TV. My brother had deliberately gone that route years before, without money influencing the equation, and confirmed what we both knew in advance anyhow. TV is a dreadful time-wasting sink that offers an illusion of improving life that exceeds the reality.

I do miss being able to keep up with Dr Who and other quality programs. But I know that it takes stronger willpower than mine to strictly limit watching to the best material. When the box of imps gets turned on, it demands that you keep watching all evening.

I am happy in being able to spend more of my life expanding my understanding of the sum of human knowledge. The internet has more than its share of time-wasting sinks, but it is a better tool for focussing on the useful stuff than TV.

Yep we have the same thing here, in the uk at least. Although I read somewhere that emergency services don’t like it much because it makes it harder to track the phone as there’s obviously no IMEI or phone number. Don’t know if that’s true though, but they definitely wouldn’t be able to call you back.

From my experience I can categorically state that former soviet countries give little thought do not think at all about making any contingency for emergencies or provision for health and safety in any form.

Well… I did not want to mention this because some people have issues with it but there are always torrent sites you could download selected series from. Or if you felt bad about that used DVDs are a way to go. Personally I kind of prefer Netflix or DVDs because of the commercials you don’t have to watch. Plus I can watch them anytime I wish in any order I wish and since Netflix only costs $8 a month and the first month is free it’s a pretty good deal. I liked Red Box but hated going back to return the DVDs.

Anything that has a monetary cost is simply not an option for me. Torrent sites, for these purposes, are simply pirate sites. Whilst I do believe that our copyright laws are flawed and not fit for purpose in the present era, they are what we have at the moment and I play by the rules. I know that I am in a tiny minority, and do not knock those who choose another path.

What I do realise is that for the present system to work at all there must be a minimum percentage of honest people in the population. Too few and the copyright system fails. There is too weak enforcement of the law. Such that much of the public feel that there is no need for them to comply with the legislation. They have no fear of prosecution, as a private individual end user. What keeps the system working at the moment is that enough people are still honest enough to pay for the products despite there being no risk in stealing it via copying.

I am one of those who follows the honest route. When I had lots of money I bought lots of DVDs the same as anyone else. As money got tighter, I restricted myself to cheaper and cheaper ones. But only those from legal sources. Now that I cannot even afford bargain basement ones, I do not feel that I am suddenly entitled to steal them. It is not like food or air, I do not need it to exist. And there are legal alternatives. This comic being an example. When I can afford to, I will happily contribute to it. Until such time, the system DaveB subscribes to allows me free access to it.

Similarly with other material. Katie Melua being a great example. She posts much of her work free on YouTube. And, barring albums that have just been released, tolerates pretty much any of her material being posted there by fans too. As such my favourites list is 90% full of her work. And someday I hope to buy copies of all the albums and go to her concerts in person.

If anyone were to suggest that as I could not afford to buy her albums now it was ok for me to pirate them, I would disagree most vehemently. She has chosen to offer her work on YouTube, she has not chosen to give away albums free, and I respect that. Her attitude is more than generous and I would not abuse it.

There is one area that I do compromise my ethics on. However I do recognise that my justifications are an excuse for doing something that I would not do if I had greater strength in my convictions. And that is if a film or series has been on YouTube, under it’s own name for a long period and has not been challenged, then I don’t mind watching it.

Why is YouTube ok but a pirate site not? Because the latter does not co-operate with copyright enforcement, seeks to operate in a way to make it as difficult as possible to stop, and even if closed down by the courts, can simply be re-started in a couple of days in another jurisdiction. Making international copyright enforcement expensive and time consuming. With no possibility of complete success.

Whereas YouTube does not behave in such a way, provides a simple and easy mechanism to remove copyright material and even co-operates in development of automated software to identify such activities. Not to mention shutting down accounts that contravene copyright law.

My primary self-justification, that tipped the balance in compromising my principles, is that if a company is financially dependant on a product, they will take steps to protect it. If the video is posted clearly and has no attempt to disguise it, then clearly the owning company is unconcerned about the violation. All it would take is periodic checking and a click on a button to have it taken down. If they have not done so then it cannot be that important to their revenue stream.

Fortunately this is supported, in principle, by copyright law. It is the copyright holder’s responsibility to enforce their copyright. Enforcement on YouTube, the biggest legal video sharing site on the planet, is simple. If they are failing to do that then they are failing in their obligation to protect that copyright.

An ancillary justification is that I do not download those videos, I merely watch them. Which means that the company will still have it’s opportunity to enforce the copyright if their situation changes and they decide that it is financially important to them. Plus I like having a big DVD collection, so any movies which I deem good enough to re-watch, I will buy when I can afford them.

Oddly enough, quite a few of the older movies I watch via YouTube I actually own anyhow. It is just easier to click to view than to hunt for the box.

Yikes. Sorry about the length of that post. It is a debate I often have with folks who berate me for not watching pirate material. I just did not notice quite how long I had ranted on. I shall try to keep things shorter.

No, it’s nothing like either version of The Office (it’s not a mock-reality show, where every now and then they cut to one of the actors talking directly to the camera/4th Wall), it’s just a comedy about a chef in the country

Cool. It was more of the incompetent in the job and employing of idiots vibe I was alluding to. But I must admit that most of my aversion to the Office was because when it originally aired I was working in one. And saw more than enough of that going on around me. Be it comedic, tragic or criminally incompetent. I just could not stomach more of the same, when getting home after a long commute.

Nevertheless, she does come off as smug. She may have cause, and she may well be the most powerful person in the world and completely able to support her bravado, but that doesn’t mean she’s likable for it. Nor that it would be great writing if it did turn out that way, regardless – a story where the most powerful character is both unbeatable and on your side is a story where there’s no room to actually develop anything.

Look at what happened with Superman comics. He’s stronger than anyone, faster than anyone, and immune to any kind of physical attack, so all the storylines revolve around his weaknesses. Endless kryptonite plots, hostage plots, risking-the-cover-of-his-secret-identity plots, amnesia plots, dumping-him-in-places-he-“can’t”-get-back-from plots, etc etc. The whole idea of Superman being too amazing to take on is appealing, until you actually try to write a story about him. And Superman was actually fairly humble. Imagine how he’d come off if he he was as arrogant as Max.

but at the end of the day, no matter how fast she is, she can’t be in two places at once.
she can’t save everyone etc.

I don’t see how that’s relevant. As far as I can tell, she doesn’t think she can. On the contrary, part of the she threw down the gauntlet was so to thin the number of potential enemies by scaring them into not trying to antagonize her and to get those who would anyway to consider having to come to her, both of which lessen the number of places she would have to be otherwise.

In regards to Max spelling out the function of arc-light to Arianna seems pretty much perfectly in character to me. It’s a sarcastic response. Max’ whole point being that she shouldn’t have to point it out but because Arianna is pretending to not know about Arc-Light (ostensibly in an attempt to win an argument with Max) she’s spelling it out to Arianna any way… in effect underlining Arianna’s attempt to win an argument through such tactics.

Now maybe that wasn’t your intention for the characters and their dialog. Yet, before even reading your notes on the page that was how I took their interaction. I’ve had such methods used against me on countless occasions and, sad to say, I’ve gotten irritated enough to use them myself at times. It happens.

Here’s my point. Be careful that, in your distaste for certain writing “crutches” like the one you describe you don’t cast down legitimately good writing. Some of the most famous and long lasting works of literature in history are full of plot holes and dues ex machina and “For the Evuls” antagonists. They remain goto examples of fine literature anyway. :-)

There’s also the fact that all these divisions are new, and they all have obscure names – it could have been called ARC investigations or Department of Super Investigations or something, but instead it’s name doesn’t directly explain anything, like Delta Force – considering Arianna is mainly PR, and not military, I wouldn’t be surprised by her forgetting things, even if it wasn’t a misdirect

Maxima is quickly rising to be my least favorite character. She scoffs at authority, and thrives off of fear and power-based solutions. She acts unconcerned for the feelings or well-being of others.

At first I thought her mentoring of Sydney was out of love and respect, but now I see that it’s more an issue of control. She’s reacting that way because she doesn’t fully comprehend Sydney’s powers, and some part of her hates that (not to mention that, on more than one occasion, Sydney’s orbs have withstood or countered Maxima’s powers).

Maxima didn’t but the public in danger, she specifically had a shield but up that was already tested by Maxima. If anyone put the public in danger, it’s Arianna who had Sydney use an untested power with little protection for the public.

That’s not what I’ve been referring to. She’s using power-based resolutions and fear mongering. She set off a small nuke and went, “Fear me! Tremble at my terrible power!”

Does that sound like someone who you want in control of your safety? If tomorrow the president set off a nuke in the desert and declared that HIS military is mighty and all who oppose him will die, would you vote him into a position of power?

“She set off a small nuke and went, ‘Fear me! Tremble at my terrible power!'”
She has made it perfectly clear that the only people who have anything to fear from her are those who use their power to set themselves up as tin gods. True, there are those who will either ignore or disbelieve her professed motives, but that’s their fault, not Maxima’s.
“If tomorrow the president set off a nuke in the desert and declared that HIS military is mighty and all who oppose him will die, would you vote him into a position of power?”
I see several problems with your analogy. First, the energy unleashed during the demo was much closer to conventional arms than a nuclear strike (most importantly, no fallout). Second, there’s a karge difference between “oppose us and die” and “use your powers tyrannically and we will stop you”.
” I’ve known power-hungry fear mongers like Maxima….”
Where do you get the idea that she’s “power-hungry”? If that were true, she set herself up as a despot instead of voluntarily accepting being part of a (civilian-controlled?) military.

Hm, this is actually a good point. I was definitely reading either way, but I’ve known power-hungry fear mongers like Maxima in real life. Folks like her are quite set in their ways and are borderline sociopaths. It takes LOTS of shit to derail them, let alone allow character growth.

I hope so, other wise Max is becoming a rather good example of an unlikeable Mary Sue TVtrope. She’s often angry or being arrogent and so far, she gets her way. I wish we could see if she feels/shows more caring emotions and weaknesses. Something to show she’s still human under that metal skin of hers.

I see niceness in her. Although I can follow A Gray Phantom‘s interpretation on her looking out for Sydney, even from when they sat down on the curb outside the bank they were starting to bond. Yes the control thing is there but I think Maxima’s character runs deeper than that.

It seems everyone is missing the point, what you are seeing is a fight between the desk jocky(ari) and the field commander(max) on the best way to present ARCHON. Max’s way is to let people know that this shit is real and can cause serious damage, so when she tells yo to leave you had better leave. Noe Ari wants to exploit the team for profit and such andso ignores the potential fallout that could occur. For example if Maxs “old freind” shows up to play if the bystanders dont scram as Maxs tells them to the body count will be very high.

As folks have stated in other posts, the mob will be afraid no matter what. Something has dramatically changed in the world and they will fear the unknown. Maxima should not be punished for that. It is ethically right that the world be told that super-powers exist. The public will just have to get through their fears about that. Maxima has not been employed to hold their hands and council them on that issue.

What she has been hired to deal with is the most deadly and dangerous of the super villains, be they domestic or foreign. Even though you choose to ignore the fact, she did very clearly direct her threats at them. And, equally clearly, her intent for the general public was to reassure them that however dangerous the villains are, she has more than enough power to protect them.

Clearly she failed in your case. Although she succeeded in mine.

Unlike Arianna, who has been plotting this action for some time, Maxima had very little advance warning of the event. Having no prior knowledge of what Arianna was up to until after the ‘bank robbery’. Given that her intentions are well-motivated, and that she had to improvise her speech as she went along (not having been afforded the opportunity to formulate a strategy, rehearse it, refine it and seek approval and critique, I think that she did a reasonable job. She has achieved some success, even if her implementation was less than perfect.

Hardly grounds for disciplinary action. She was doing her job. She made a hard call on how tough a line to take. And literally no one else in the world would be qualified to have done the same as she did. Given that she has essentially taunted all of the super villains of the world into focussing their attention on her. That would be a death sentence for anybody of lesser capability than her.

Rather I think she should be commended for going above and beyond the call of duty in placing herself in considerable danger in order to protect the public.

“People were going to be afraid of people with superpowers anyway, so it’s better we give them something to be afraid of.”

That’s what you’re basically communicating. The message you’re expressing is that Maxima is completely justified in inciting fear (at a press conference held to make people feel safe) because people were going to be afraid anyway.

How does anyone justify inciting fear like this? What does it accomplish when a single member from a branch of the government can get away with something like that?! It’s horrible and offensive. I’ve tried to express an equivalent of someone in authority firing a massive weapon just to scare the public.

And, again, this was supposed to show that they’re the good guys. This is something that tyrants and despots do, not heroes.

She’s not just directing her threats against a specific group of people. She made a show of force for everyone to see. She could have named a specific group, like “The Red Devils” or some other terrorist group, and that would be different. But no, she went and dropped a small nuke. Why? Because she wanted to show to everyone that she can do it. She did it because she could, which is completely irresponsible.

What’s more, she wasn’t simply “doing her job.” She overstepped her bounds. Was she supposed to drop a small nuke on what was left of the tank and deliver a speech in the middle of the hellfire declaring her intentions to kill anyone who opposed her?

You speak when you’re told to speak, and nothing more or less. That’s the point. That’s why Arianna is in charge of things like that. She wasn’t going “above and beyond.” She was overstepping her bounds.

Here’s an example of going above and beyond: you’re hired as a production assistant for a movie and are sent to get some supplies for one of the actresses. You get what she needs, but also accommodate to make sure it’s the brand she likes, too.

Here’s an example of overstepping your bounds: you’re hired as a production assistant for a movie, and you see one of the actresses struggling with her lines. You step in and attempt to coach her, even though that’s the director’s job. The director gets ticked at you, and yells at you to get off the set.

I’ll reiterate that the point of the press conference was to make ArcSWAT look good. Though there is context in the fact that this is a highly fictional story, I would not be alone in my opinion of Maxima. Statistically there’d be thousands of upset American citizens that would take issue with someone like Maxima, who rejects authority and uses fear as a method of control, to have that much power.

But this is a fictional story, and Maxima will likely go without consequence for what she did. :-P

Your first line is a mis-representation of my argument and in no way a true summary of what I said. Your opinion that she has done that is perfectly fair enough. But not to twist my words to say that.

The next three paragraphs are rather an ironic stance for somebody to take on behalf of a country that developed the nuclear bomb and dropped it on two cities full of civilian targets. And then spent decades testing, demonstrating and building enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over.

Not that I am in the anti-nuclear camp. Merely pointing out that in order to take the moral high ground, one should consider precedent. Maxima is merely behaving in the same manner than the US has done for more than half a century.

Yes, it will cause controversy. And I am sure that you are representative of a lot of folks who would object to it. But those voices would not be the only ones.

Your points regarding overstepping bounds are fairly made. But erroneous in this context. Arianna is not her boss. Maxima was the senior military person present. Arianna was there to facilitate her role, not the other way around. Arianna does shoulder responsibility because she failed to adequately brief, give practice time and the like. But the decision on whether to take a hard line or a soft one is very clearly a military/police matter. Regardless of the fact that it impacts on the public relations side too. Going against the advice of the PR person may not be wise, but it is not exceeding her authority.

As to consequences those would end up being down to politics in these circumstances. In a real situation like this things could go either way, even if you ignore the super aspect to the situation. Factor that in, and I find it rather unlikely that she will be severely punished. Given that the powers that be will not want to alienate their principal super asset. Whether she realised that or not, it is probably the root of her cockiness that we see coming out. She gets away with things that other people might not.

Similarly to how a super model or pop star might get used to having things go their way a lot more often than would happen for normal folks. And sometimes they overstep the mark but do not get away with it. That might yet happen with Maxima.

We have already seen that there is considerable political fall-out, and we can assume that there is a lot more like it going on, without having to waste valuable comic time showing that. But do I think that it would be fair to assume that if she does not get punished it is purely because the writer decided that? No. It is credible that things could go either way, for the reasons I have stated.

Of course the rabid tree-hugging anti-nuke camp would be frothing at the mouth. But that is just funny.

Well, “possessing authority” does not automatically equate with “always being right.” Note how the current government acts. As far as how other people “feel,” we live in a universe of “action begets reaction; cause begets effect,” so how a person “feels” about it isn’t even a factor in how things work out.

After all, *actions* & the results of those actions are what counts, not “intentions.” If intentions were the equal of actions, Marvel’s Dr. Doom would be a hero, not a villain.

Cadet means Academy, Military College or joint Military/University Education, doesn’t mean she will become an Commissioned Officer when she graduates, IRL ATM they will make you nothing short of an E-6 after spending that much money on you, more likely is being made a Warrant Officer or Commission you as an Officer.

not that it’s used anymore but they could make her a Commissioned Specialist, meaning they can give her Commissioned security clearance and recognize her skill set without giving her any Command Authority.

I studied performance theory in college, so I can cite a truly enormous and boring amount of authority to support the proposition that all performance, and by extension all writing, is largely artificial. Trying to impose reality takes you into the realm of ‘verities’, and you have to include all the boring and trivial stuff that doesn’t advance the story.

Not only is that bad storytelling, it’s boringly easy and *still* artificial. Read Stanislaw Lem’s _Cyberiad_, especially the story about the pirate with the PhD who was obsessed with ‘facts’.

Good storytelling works in the realm of ‘verisimilitude': something that exploits the human mind’s core function of editing out irrelevant details and focusing on interesting patterns. The goal isn’t to present reality as it happens, but to have people remember the story the way they’d remember the reality.

That gives you room to flex the verities. If you have to choose between doing an “as you know” scene and handling all the mechanics necessary to put a Watson at the appropriate place at the appropriate time to justify an infodump, ask yourself which one makes better use of precious frames.

Perhaps, but as a not-exactly casual student of storytelling myself, I can tell you that those very inconsequential details can easily become critical to creating the necessary suspension of disbelief. In short, minor details are what we use to establish patterns early, not the big, overarching story lines. We don’t notice this with a performance, because the performer provides the details, instead of the writer. In that case, the writer simply provides a bare-bones outline of what’s going on, while the performer and the director provide the details, and decide what tone the whole thing takes. Which is why a movie, play, or piece of music can differ so greatly depending on who is performing it, and why you can tell when somebody is just lip-synching, as opposed to actually performing the piece. You don’t have to go through a frame-by-frame to catch the minor hiccups. You can tell something is off before you do so.

This is, at its core, what performing is all about: adding the apparently unimportant details that make us suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy the performing, and it’s really why acting is considered one of the creative arts, even when so little about the performance’s bare bones outline was created by the actor. The difference between an actor’s conception of a script and a writer’s can be light and day,

Writers of books, short stories, and comics, however, don’t have the luxury of having a performer add those details. They have to add them themselves, and do so in such a way so as to not interrupt the flow of the story. Verisimilitude is relatively easy to create in a performance (and easy to destroy, but that’s a different issue), but harder to create in the context of a written or drawn story. The flip side, and one that many authors exploit, is that it is harder to LOSE verisimilitude, once you get it.

In many ways, comic books get the worst of both worlds here. They can lose that sense of realism very quickly, the more so since their subjects are necessarily not the visual norm, just as any performance can, but they also have all the problems that any novel or short story does in establishing verisimilitude. So…no, it’s not really a question of panel use, so much as a use of a very limited suspension of disbelief. Basically, I KNOW that this comic is not real, and that the major basis for the story can never happen. So, to some extent, the verities MUST be included, to make me able to accept that such a familiar world could exist even with the glaring differences portrayed.

DaveB’s talent-and it is on staggeringly blatant display here–lies in his ability to use those verities to enhance and progress the story. Take this strip, for instance: ARC-LIGHT will almost certainly feature in future strips, as will many of the other throw-aways featured in the debate. They will be critical plot points…but they will never come as a surprise, even though there has been no indication of them brewing before this. And that’s the real talent on display here. Is his art good? Yes, but there are plenty of webcomics drawn by really good artists, quite a few of whom are better than DaveB. Are his jokes good? Absolutely, but, again, there are better out there. I don’t follow their strips breathlessly, checking back multiple times a week when I know good and damned well that the new strips aren’t out yet. The really good comics even have both good art, and good jokes…and I don’t check back on those, either.

If DaveB can get this into gear, and then go and do it again, with another comic strip, possibly depicting another team in ARCHON, or possibly depicting something else entirely…well. Stan Lee could do that. There have been a few others. Not many, though. My goodness…not many at all.

I think perhaps part of the reason I keep coming back is a simply a fascination…how high can this author climb? And can he recognize his abilities well enough to keep atop that lofty pinnacle? Time will tell, but I’m ambitious enough for myself to want to see others succeed as well, so…I’m rooting for you, Dave

To be faire not all stories, even with this, scale thing your talking about can give a well managed story, some are, will be, simply better then others, that is the way of it. Dave puts a lot of work into this, and I believe is not uneducated to story telling. He has done an excellent job, top five for web comics storytelling in my opinion. But like all things in business if he is pressed, or time is critical, mistakes will be made and quality will suffer.

This performance theory sounds more like psycho linguistics, good for politician’s and commercial’s not creative writing. I’m sure it has some barring on it, in a kind of Shake the spear kind of way.

No, what he’s talking about is very real, and is a core tenant of all script-writing, video-game creation, and, often, collaborative fiction. Simply put, writers have to establish something people can believe in, without destroying the pacing of the story. Get people caught up in the story, and they will overlook things like people taking off pants that they never put on, or something like that. Really good authors will work to include those verities, as they create a sense of realism very early on in the story. Acceptable authors can create that sense of realism without depending on the verities to do it for them–this is why so many good novelists cannot easily translate those skills to writing short stories, and vice versa.

Thing is, if you can cover the RIGHT verities, and in just the right manner, you don’t have to include much in the way of detail later on–you can let the fridge logic take care of the rest. To give you an example right off the top of my head: About 3 years into the original Spider Man comic, one of Spidey’s enemies MARRIED his aunt, who was Spiderman’s only living relative. Which means that Doc Ock became Spiderman’s in-law, and intervened on behalf of Peter Parker on several occasions, both in terms of career, and in terms of personal crises. Years later, when Aunt May got sick, this led to a rather hilarious caper where both Spiderman and Doc Ock were trying to steal the same formula to cure her, for the same reason, at the same time…and because neither one wanted to reveal to the other WHY they wanted it, they ended up getting into a protracted battle over the whole affair, with neither feeling they could afford to back down. Ultimately Spiderman won, of course, but one has to ask…did Doc Ock really lose?

Maxima, dearie, you’re being sarcastic, but when large groups of people take to the streets chanting “down with supercops,” with a mob mindset, lots of innocents get hurt, massive property damage occurs, and you have just given any anti-arcon agitators the ammunition they need. Riots are also not easy to overcome, nor can you simply out-power or intimidate them.

One good way to counter mobs of morons like that: supercops go on holiday, along with regular cops, see how long it takes for the “down with (super)cops!” come running for their help when the (super)crooks come out to play

Well, that would be the ideal, but (super)cops aren’t there to be liked, they are there because they are needed

Allow me to present another sure to be for Maxima and Company to deal with: Celebrity. We already know that Harem is involved on this end, what with the playboy spread that I choose to recognize as canon because of how hot it was.

Look at how we treat the Kardashians. Well, how the rest of the country treats the Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo, Miley Cyrus, and the like. These people have done nothing worthwhile yet they are treated unto gods. The Jersey Shore kids. What have they done worthy of praise? Yet so much praise gets heaped on them.

Now, with Maxima and the rest of Archon that can do rare things and are in charge of defending the world, thereby earning a lot of celebrity status. People will hate them yes, but people will love them. It’s already happening in fact. This means paparazzi, stalkers, free meals provided by people wondering how to turn the gold one to their side. Endorsements, Make a Wish, hate forums in their name. No time for privacy, and always needing to put their best face forward at all times or all the good could come crashing down, leaving only the bad. Coming out like this, it’s a precarious position to be.

Miley Cyrus Popstar with a C&W/Pop star father.
Kardashians I think their some kind of Celebutards, their name has bean droped in the media in this part of the world.
But who the Hell is this “Honey Boo Boo” character and why should I care about it?

It automatically makes it a link, but if you want to get fancy and ‘hide’ the 100-character URL, just type (a href=”http://www.collectedcurios.com/sequentialart.php?s=873″)text here(/a) {replace the () with the ‘less-than’/’greater-than’ signs}

Just replace their example link with your own, plus their “Visit W3Schools.com!” with text of your choosing. Then click the button ‘submit code’ to see your test displayed on the right. If something is wrong then you can edit your code on the left and try again. If all is well, you can cut and paste your line of code into your comment here.

Plus, if you explore that website, it has a whole bunch of useful information on related code that can be of use. Such as those displayed at the very bottom of this page, above the adds. It is not 100% compatible with the code used on this site, but it is mostly the same. So is a useful place to look if you are curious about how to put things in bold or to quote other commentators in a distinctive style.

I was dropping those names as an example of people who’ve made a negative impact in our society being treated as if they were bad enough to save the president. (And I think Miley Cyrus will give you an STD just by looking at you now.) It especially contrasts with the members of Archon who have all these cool powers, go save people’s lives, and most importantly to the media, are sexy.

The ones that like supers, like the citizens from the D.C. Universe will be all in favor of Archon. The ones that think celebrities are better people than us will worship them. Meanwhile the citizens from the Marvel Universe will start plotting their deaths because the citizen got a hangnail while watching a fight on MSNBC.

Light looks more like investigations and/or white collar crimes division, “shining a light onto things”, where not being able to punch a tank or take a bullet should not matter, not straight up intelligence gathering – Dark seems to be spies and intelligence

Many countries have equivalents operating within each arm of their military. Take naval intelligence and military police as examples. Investigating white collar crimes being just as important in a military environment as in a civilian one. It is simply a matter that such organisations like to keep things ‘in house’ for a variety of reasons including security and operational effectiveness.

In the context of a super organisation, such as Dave has created with Archon, I find the structure of the branches such as Arc-Light and Dark to be wholly believable, credible and workable. As per panel 2 above, there are things that supers villains can do which any mundane investigations unit would be incapable of resolving. You need to bring relevant experts in the field into a specialised unit and give them access to appropriately powered and skilled individuals to counter those types of threats.

We haven’t seen that much of the structure or I forgot about it. The powers of a military police differ from country to country. Mine isn’t allowed to do nearly as much.
But then I am wondering about the effectiveness of a supers CSI team because there are not much supers. The teleporter case is obvious but you cannot call Archon every time something is fishy and normal police might not believe in a super threat and be reluctant to call Arc-Light.
I guess I will wait to see how the author developes these organizations.

Granted. Although we may not get to see too much of Arc-Light and Arc-Dark, because the focus of the story lies with the heavy-hitting SWAT branch. But there is bound to be some interaction, even doing that. When the intelligence side finds something that needs whacking, or if they need assistance rescuing an operative who is in trouble, as examples.

Likewise something starting out as a white collar crime investigation can uncover some dastardly super villain plot, so we could see the hand-over to our team to knock down the doors that have been uncovered. Or the reverse might happen. A super villain escapes and Arc-Dark/Light get called in to track him down.

@David Barrack: Is that NYT headline behind Arianna in the last frame the one where Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914? If so, it’s an interesting choice there, ain’t it?

That was asked on the first page. He said it wasn’t anything more than restaurant kitsch. This led to a discussion of how supers might have changed history, including the first man on the moon possibly being able to do without oxygen.

It is an interesting headline to pick for restaurant kitsch. I missed it because I didn’t feel like digging through 230 previous comments. I tried searching for “Sarajevo” but didn’t notice there were two pages of comments.

Just thought about one thing.
Since Syd can stash her orbs in her poster tube…
Can she have only one or two of them out and use them or do they all need to be out?
I can imagine her using her orbs to sho others how flying feels (since none of her normal friends and only few Archons can fly) or help out in daily stuff with her orbs. Like moving stuff hento-orb way, or per flying+shield. Imagine her flying her car per flight+shield; or shopping.
Syd on an all-girls Archon shopping spree, trailing her hento-orb tentacle behind her, loaded with dozens of bags and stuff, then the actual transporting back to the base.

I don’t know, I think the way you handled it actually works quite well in the narrative.

This was a very basic response to a question, that even if Arianna knew the answer to, as flustered as she was, a quick reminder of the lower their structure was likely in order. After what Maxima did, most normals would be a bit more than flustered, so in this case, as it seems more part of a relatively normal conversation, I would not classify it as a trope, as the conversation untouched on enough data to remind Arianna of what ARC-Light does. (However, it could get a bit confusing as nuclear weapon strikes are called Arclight flights. A villian with nuclear powers may name themselves Arclight for that very reason).

Of course an intelligent super-villain will give himself a name which does not reveal the nature of his powers. When creating super heroes or villains to play against a computer environment, I have as much fun as playing with names as anyone.

But if I create a PVP character, the naming scheme can give you an edge. I have used strategies such as misleading names to make opponents mistake my character’s nature; having names that seemed identical to team-mates, to prevent one from being picked out from another; and having as short a name as possible (in a computer environment where people can pick you out by your name being displayed on screen, if your avatar has both a small body and a short name you can hide a lot easier).

The same would apply if anticipating opposition by any intelligent foe. Which is why, in principle, code names assigned to operations, units, instillations and operatives should never give hints as to their actual nature. No need to give your enemies clues to find out more about you.

Although that would have been an excellent cover-name for an operation to import stocks of tea. It would divert valuable enemy intelligence resources to investigating something of minimal military significance.

Has it been bugging you that there are no cells to keep super-villains separated from the rest of the swarm plaguing you? Want to ensure they are safely stored away for their full sentence? Arc-hive has just the cells you are looking for.

um. . . just out of curiosity, can sydney put a forcefield around someone else without herself already inside? just wondering cuz i’ve only seen her include others with her inside already, also can she make more than one at a time? or is that a upgrade only ability?

No. The reference is about Blade Runner. A science fiction story that revolves around androids called Replicants. It deals with the inevitable point that will come when our robots can be made so well that they are indistinguishable from humans. In the story it takes a long test to differentiate one from another.

The time reference is important, because that is the method of control used. Just in case the androids stop behaving like the robotic slaves they are meant to be, they are given a strictly limited lifespan. So it pivotal to the story, and extremely moving, when you see things from the point of view of a replicant who considers himself human.

A trick that DaveB utilises in a variety of forms (mostly in having the others tell the rookie, rather than getting her to ask the question). I think the problem he is now facing is how to give more time to the rest of the cast, without using that technique.

Well, what if by using such a show of force and revealing them in that manner the villains with the big schemes that would normally have brushed them off will now actively try to antagonize them and commit acts of terrorism to bait them out. While before they would have ignored them and gone about their business as normal, giving Arc lite a chance to weed them out so the heroes can get the jump on them over the bad guys getting the jump on them. Still think it would be way better to get the eliminate f surprise on the enemy instead of taking the element of surprise over the enemy.

The trouble is that the only way to have retained surprise over villains is for the existence of Arc to remain secret. Representative societies such as democracies and republics have an issue with secret police. Especially ones who, as with SWAT police, would be expected to kill threats which could not be neutralised with other means.

Honestly, that was the best part of this page. Though, I did notice, whether it was actually intended or not, the reference to arc lights, which are those high-powered lights often used at construction sites (among other places) and ARC-Light. (plus, the light coming from the vault-looking place helped that little thing in my head.)

A little nit-picking here though: In the second to last panel where it’s just Max and Arianna in silhouette, you pointed the bubbles wrong, so Max is saying A’s line and A is saying Max’s line. Just saying.

Still, love the story so far, Especially Sydney! Gonna read what’s here and then find out how to get the site to email me when you put up new chapters!

The muscular, well-endowed, tall silhouette, on our left is Maxima. The one with her hand to her forehead, on her right, is Arianna. The art follows good ease of recognition practice, in keeping the viewer position such that Maxima is always on the left, in the conversation, with Arianna on the right.

This can be confirmed by the fact that Maxima consistently has her back to the wall, throughout the scene. Further, in the final panel, Arianna still has her hand in the same position.

Maximas speech bubble, in the proceeding panel, ends with “… helpless against supervillans and foreign super powers.” In the panel you are questioning, she then goes on to correct her line, in the first person. It is Maxima speaking, and she is saying the right line.

To swap it over, would have Arianna trying to correct, in the first person (ie making it clear it was her own mistake, not Maximas) a verbal mistake, that she had not made. Which would not be logical.

Google Banner

I'll just leave these here for your convenience - and obviously to drive a little traffic my way. Bottom line is If you like the comic, vote, share and tell others! Maybe someone else who will enjoy the comic will find their way here.